The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

However...

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2002 @ 02:30 pm EST

They won\'t do it and for good reasons. It\'s not my intention to start a troll but if you compare similar things and not the cheapest PC against the cheapest Mac, you\'ll realize that Apple\'s hardware isn\'t that expensive.

OK I\'m a Mac and OS X fan so I\'m partial. But using OS X, W2000 and Linux everyday I can tell you there\'s very little things missing on the Mac side for so many nicer details.

Mac OSX is superior to windows XP in many ways (of course it is still buggy). So from an operating system point of view, the Mac is superior.

However, PCs are much better from a hardware point of view. If you compare what $3,000.00 will get you with a MAC and then compare what that will get you with a PC, PCs simply blow the mac away. Not to mention, Mac hardware is not only expensive, but offers only limited hardward upgrades.

So far apple\'s superior OS and loyal user base has kept it alive because people are willing to pay the very high premium for Mac hardware. But not for much longer. My partners and I use macs in our graphics studio, but 2 out of the three of us have decided that from now on, we will replace our macs with PCs since macs are just too expensive (photoshop, golive, etc. all run just as well on a pc).

The AMD v.s. Intel price battle and the availability of numerous chipset manufacturers has dramatically improved the price/performance ratio of PC hardware. As a result, the premium you pay for a mac compared to a PC is increasing rapidly and I think more and more mac users will begin to find that they can no longer justifiy the cost.

Also, most new technical innovations (DDR Ram, 266Mhz Bus, AGP, etc...etc.) are all PC innovations because the PC market has many competitors and the user base is large enough to absorb the R&D cost. Apple is just one company with a small user base. As time goes on they will continue to fall further and further behind and will (as they pretty much do now) just follow the PC hardware market\'s lead and release things like DDR Ram, etc.

So I think its inevitable that apple\'s os will need to run on PC hardware at some point so they can offer their users competitively priced hardware.

Sure this means you can just buy the apple OS and not the software which will cost mac some hardware sales. However, Mac can become like a Dell or a Gateway and still sell hardware. They can have their computer components made by independent manufacturers and bundled as Apple products and supported by them. Mac loyalists and people who like \"pretty hardware\" will be willing to pay a slight premium for Apple branded PC hardware.

Simply put, the hardware advantage of PCs will make the mac professional user base dwindle to the point where mac wont be able to survive by selling IMacs and IPods to college kids. They will need to switch to the PC platform to survive.

First off, you're all correct... well mostly... OS X's aqua
options and many foundations of the Macintosh
portions of OS X will NEVER be ported. However, the
open soucre side of it known as Darwin. It is correct that
Apple is a hardware company, though it is also correct
that apple is a software company... Apple makes the
whole machine. They are actually in quite a unique
position to be able to provide users with an awesome
experience straight from the box... with nothing to
install, a registration form which can be quit out of :) ,
and coos software which looks good, works well, and
is fully featured and somehow easy to use... it can't be
beat.

Apple won't port OS X to an x86 based machine for
several reasons:

1) Apple is the most profitable computer company in
the world. Somehow apple has taken the process of
building cool looking machines, with awesome spec
sheets, and real world performance. and dropped the
price... and not just because components cost less...

2) Mac OS X is uniquely grounded with the PowerPC
G3 and G4 processors. Moreso the G4 than the G3, as
you'll note with performance. The velocity engine on the
G4 chips does wonders to the speed of the Aqua user
interface, allowing it to run at some points almost 6
times the speed of an equivelant G3 based machine.

3) Apple is out to change the world. CISC (Core
Instruction Set Computing) based processors have
been manufactured for almost 30 years now. That's
freakin old. RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing)
has only been around since the mid nineties, which
gives Apple lots of legroom as the largest purchaser of
PPC based chips. Also the PowerPC chips were
designed from the bottom up knowing they were to be
used in systems which would be sporting a graphical
user interface. This gives another unique prospective
since CISC based chips are still founded on the same
pricipals of calculation they were 30 years ago.

4) Apple has always been an 'in house' company.
While they've been shying away from that recently, it
hasn't met with much enthusiasm from most 'in the
know' Mac users, who all realize that Apple has lost
some control over the quality of the product hardware
wise in the past year. Apple is very enthusiastic about
the open source Darwin base of OS X, and is happy
that it runs on x86 based machines... however, OS X
will not be ported because they simply couldn't justify
writing the OS to work on that many different types of
machines. Apple has been able to keep their OS more
stable and ahead of its time for years by integrating the
OS with the hardware that they create. Some see this
as a weakness, but I see it as a strong suit, here's
why:

{
Since Apple makes more innovative machines, they
also make really creative and innovative software. They
weren't the first to bring DVD-R to the desktop, but they
wanted to wait to give consumers the ability to also
burn CD's with the same drive, as well as give them a
software package that could help them to easily put
together an impressive DVD in just a few minutes. The
same was with iTunes. While Apple admittedly was
not the first company to bring CD burning to everyone,
they brought the easiest way to burn CD's to anyone
with a Mac. iTunes is fabulous (if you haven't tried it out
yet stop by an AppleStore, or other retailer with a Mac), it
really does simplify things a great deal. Data CD
burning is built into the OS, so all the user has to do is
insert a blank disc and the Os will prompt the user to
give the disc a name, from there it's just ike moving
files inbetween folders (literally).

Keeping the hardware controlled allows Apple the
unique opportunity to make sure that the OS and the
software work seamlessly. It also helps developers.
Developers don't want to have to make sure their stuff
works with this card and that, or this software or that
external option... they just want it to work... Apple keeps
this simple by providing an OS which is straight
forward, and easy to develop for, as well as Hardware
which is streamlined and only comes in certain
configurations. While users can Upgrade the G4
PowerMac's very easily with new cards and such the
likelihood of having the OS, or a software program
spontaneously combust is much lower on a Mac.
Keeping it this way allows Apple to keep that sort of
happy setting within the Macintosh community, and
they're not letting go of it anytime soon.
}

I enjoy your enthusiasm, and consur that my previous statements were incorrect, and have ammended all information in my brain to synchronize with it.

Do we all however, agree that RISC is better than CISC? I know the two technologies are now getting very close to each other, but RISC sems to have much, much more life left in it. Though if both technology styles are that old, isn\'t it time for new technology?

Apple, MAC, whatever, is nice. But so is X-Box and the Cube. And they change faces just about as often. But let\'s get serious for a moment. MAC is good for coloring and my marketing department, but that is where it stops. Sorry, I guess I miss what the hype is here or the point of concern with OS X.

Umm... isn\'t it quite easy to miss points, no matter how stunningly obvious, if you are closed to objectivity? Can\'t you see you are a cretin? I mean, what other kind of person would post a first-hand statement regarding the affinities or capabilities of a complex OS which they know nothing about first-hand?

If you don\'t know what your talking about. Read. Study. Experience. Stop posting when your moutpiece is your ass. Installing Linux on your computer does not make you competent; it makes you part of the unconscious drones repeating just another new marketing slogan that is so popular right now.

Where were you when Linux wasn\'t easy to install or popular? Were you making comments about how it was only good for running Apache and XFree86 sucked? Probably not. And don\'t think we don\'t know why. Because you are an idiot. You don\'t even realize that by posting out here in the real, wide world, that what works on people even dumber than you won\'t work here, other than to prove your utter lack of credulity.

Small price to pay I guess, for our global consipiracy to get the dumbest people in the world to keep to themselves and out of our way. Come back when you can write a GUI program instead of use one. We know you\'ll never, ever get there. The conspiracy rests comfortably on that fact. Enjoy the fruit of Apple\'s innovation... you don\'t have to realize it. Just stay where you are.

Hey man...don\'t know if you know this or not but Apple has been keeping a i386 version of OSX in step with the PowerPC version since the very beginning, in secret of course. It was annouced August 2002 I think.

Here is the link.http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

They also just released the Darwin Kernel for Intel processors, no AMD support as of yet.

Also, to whomever posted about how OSX is tied to the PowerPC and could never be ported to i386....thats just not true. OSX is based on BSD and contains little if any legacy code.

Most of the punkass dolts about nowadays have either recently switched from Windows, or are dual-booting, using RPM to install their KDE and then boasting about using Unix and complaining that what really needs to be accepted is a better, easier, GUI with Office applications.

Well. Linux does _not_ need that, never has, and they have never needed you. Likewise with Apple. Please, please, stay off of that computer. We\'d like to keep you people on x86 and believing that your \'70\'s era instructions really do rock, and so does IDE and shitty BIOS. Linux deals with this stuff nicely - a tribute to the cleverness and ingenuity of people all over the world to not only produce great quality, but do so with sub-par components.

Apple provides great consumer quality. And Sun and *BSD provide great commercial quality - as do some carefully chosen Linux options. If you like that quality, then go get it. If you don\'t, stay with x86 and keep jacking yourself off about one kind of motherboard, and one instruction set, and no alternatives. You can continue to hold your myopic views and not bother the rest of us with your burdensome anti-logic.

There are hobbyists who work with what they have and not with what they can\'t afford, and then there are those who consistently buy shit like Intel boxes and Windows who remain stupid enough to drive gear down to commodity prices for the rest of us. Thank you, but please, stay where you are.

Starting with G3s Macs moved to cheaper IDE...the same guy that was complaining about PC users spouting trash is spouting incorrect facts himself.

In other news, I am a PC lover - BUT...I am buying a Titanium G4 because it is a wonderful machine. Simple. I\'ve always been a unix man, so being able to tinker on a command line level is often nicer and easier than using a gui...I also love the instant results of a Mac...

Unfortunately I never felt that you could immerse yourself too much in the mac\'s OS environment, where I could on a PC. Hopefully that has changed with the new OSx.

Two things that annoy me: OSx doesnt allow for a change in window managers like linux would, and I\'m not sure I will be able to get used to having programs just dumped in the / directory (at least that\'s how it is on my buddy\'s computer...maybe he\'s just an idiot)

I was so impressed with windows in the early days I ended up developing for it for the past 11 years. I therefor think I have a very well informed opinion of the os. It SUCKS!You like windows.....bite me. You\'re a F*cking idiot! What is there to like? Stop bickering like a b*tch and accept the fact that they got your pants down and your taking it large!

As a serious business developer I have dabled with every aspect of programming technology. Nothing is sacred in the MS world. How can you back somebody who develops a \'data access object\' for windows that breaks the last one is not compatible with the new one and is different to the one you get with Office....which by the way is completely incompatible with any other one and so forth....I for one have had enough of this sh*t! I now spend my time redevloping everything I developed the year before to make sure it still works with all the same new sh*t MS brings out.

Don\'t b*tch about PCs being faster. That just means your machine crashes quicker and as for price.....do you drive a lada?. THINK before you speak. I do not own a mac, but I want to. I do not know if they are better but what an MS fan has to ask themselves is.....can it get any worse? Personal oppinion die Microsoft you had your chance....

.NET......what the f*ck? A whole new way to develop the same stuff you developed last year.....just when I thought I could enjoy my creativity instead I settle down to relearn everything again.

Im sorry i have a pc and a g4,,,,and the g4 is shit,,,i am always at the cutting edge with software, i like to keep up to date with what is going on,,,,when you get something for the pc,,,,like divx for example can you get it for mac yeah about 2 years later,,,,face it they are 3 times the price,,and they dont work any quicker,,,

what the guy said before my post about having to go over all his previos work to keep up with microsoft,,,,what about osx.2 jaguar,,,what a joke,,, you install the os,,,and then you realise no one has released anything to work with it yet,,like quark express only a £1000,,,but now jag is installed i can not print with it,cos it only works in classic,,,im sorry macs are a rip off,,and another thing matey was saying about macs being the biggest earner what are you going on about,,,i dont think bill gates is the richest man in the world cos mac make more,,,and no mac are not hardware based,,,, proccesors made by motorola,,,hard drives by ibm,,,,macs are just a rip off pc.

I converted to Mac OSX last year and recently had to use a windows Xp system - what a load of crap, you forget after you have been using Mac just how Sh*t windows is. It was so slow, It crashed, it couldn't manage its own memory, the fan was like a bloody hurricane blowing through the office. I know regard windows systems like cheap tarts on the make, colourful, noisy, cheap and they go down all the time!

Mac Rocks they are the only people who put together a total package, from looks to performance and if you want to you need never know what an operating system is. If Mac ruled in terms of market share the internet would fly, the world would have more computer users and corporations would have saved Billions.

Are you kidding me. You can't compare OSX to Windows in terms of compatibility. Do you realize how many variables and different lines of code microsoft has to code in to account for all the millions of different types of hardware configs that are out there?? For apple, they only had a set limit of different hardwre there could be, and thats it. Thats why its optimized so well, because it runs on limited hardware. As for the hardware itself, your also comparing high end to low end hardware. You can't take a nice Mac comp and compare it to some walmart HP/compaq and expect it to perform the same. That just isn't going to happen. Get off your high horse and use the OS that you prefer and STFU. You techno geeks b*tch wayy too much. If you need to flame that much on the net you need a new hobby.

you DO realize that Microsoft doesn't code all the drivers and other code to make it compatible with all the hardware out there? That would require effort. Its a lot easier to just use your monopoly over all that is PC and make any hardware company that wishes to use your OS to jump through hoops to work with Windows.

Question: what kind of crappy PC were you using? I have had XP running on 2 PCs for just under 2 years now, one a Dell PIII, the other an AnthlonXP I built. I have BSOD'ed the AMD once, and only once, when trying to watch tv, play video files, and play a DVD at the same time. Sounds like the PC you were using was some eMachine piece of crap.

Where did you all come from and why? This is not the kind of discussion I've become accustomed to around here. It's a real shame. I enjoy geeklog's collaborative and open atmosphere, which you are trying to corrupt with your anger. Save it for comment #847 on slashdot. Maybe the gl team should take a page from k5: if it's worth saying, it's worth logging in.

Having been an Apple user since my apple II, I will tell you that unless someone kidnaps Steve and hold him randsom, they will never get port OS X to x86 hardware or anything other that their own proprietary chips.

They can not afford to get out of the hardware business. How hard would it be to launch an new product like the ipod, if they were not sure that all Mac would have fire wire. How are they going to continue to provide legendary tech support if they have to support some over clocked AMD chip.

Never going to happen, period.

People need to get over the fact that Mac hardware costs more, nobody complains that BMW parts do not fit in to Toyotas.

It's funny going back to this poll and seeing the opinions that this day would never come.

I can't decide if it's a good thing or a bad thing. On the downside it'll mean a forced hardware upgrade next year. The upside it means that windows software will be easier to port to OS X, and there is the possibility of dual boot windows and OS X.

I just want to point out that everyone in here has good points.. Apples are for the most part, very stable, and are very easy to use for beginners. The new OSx has finaly made the MAC a platform for more indepth users. However! - You also need to realize that mac software selection is almost nonexistant when compared to the availible selection of PC software, and software that is availible for mac, is 99% of the time also avail for PC on one OS or another. If you want to play anything near a newer game, yer gonna need a PC, game devel and hardware devel goes where the money is, sorry. Also, some of you where bashing PC hardware spouting that the MACS has better hardware. Macs for the most part come with IDE hardrives, PC133 or DDR memory, and AGP video cards along with other things; all of which were designed for and made cost effective by the i386 followers. Also, if macs were so awesome, why dont they hold a majority on servers. The answer... bigger - more powerful systems for less $$, better support, more software. Overall better performance. Also, all you mac fans that spout yer G5s out there, the G5 is a great chip, ill give you that. But Apple themselves have given up on the RISC based motorola processors due to their insane heat and power requirements, and very limited headroom to grow. Recent Apple press releases have said that apple is moving over to an i386 based platform with a propritory rom systems to enforce Apple software only runs on their systems. Even Apple admits to having a fully running port of OSX for i386, requireing their rom. So, what are you left with, Apple themselves have given up on their platform and moved to i386. Face it, apple is going the way of SEGA. Software only enforced by a hardware key. MAC lovers... stick it where the sun dont shine and realize that at some point the market is going to force you to mainstream or die.

The credits to the PC and the MACS are both note worthy. Personally I find that in the working world, Mac is better in most enviroments. Sure there are few games for macs, but look at the market for macs. Editing. Images, Films, and Audio. For those purposes they are the best, the best because they work clean and efficently. Need to transfer files from one computer to an other? No problem! Just hold down a key and connect the firewire cable to the two computers, or make a private network without configuretion with eithernet. MAC hardware may not be perfect, from my experence it has its problems, but I will say that I will not ever, EVER go back to Windows until they make a decent OS! Windows is far behind, there is no way around it. Your common Unix based OS's can easily be networked, become servers, and be able to do their task quickly and cleanly once you know what you are doing. Yes MS has the market cornered, but now in 2006 there seems to be a new interest in the fact that mac is dual-boot. So what if mac is holding back a I386 install. Like said before it keeps the quality of support and makes it easier for the programers to write good code because they took out all of the varibles and they can focus on making a better OS. Looking what Mac is doing on the I386 arcitecture now, I am just waiting to see what is around the corner, because unless Windows has something to compete with in terms of OS, people might take a closer look at MAC. Just a thought.